On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 22:39 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:15:13 -0600, Timothy > Brownawell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > tbrownaw> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 19:26 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker > wrote: > tbrownaw> > What would be needed is perhaps have approve avoid adding > tbrownaw> > a branch cert for a branch the revision isn't already in... > tbrownaw> > tbrownaw> Um, I think that's the entire purpose of approve. It > tbrownaw> basically says, "I, so-and-so, approve revision xxxxxxxx for > tbrownaw> inclusion into branch aaaa.bbbb.cccc.". > > Yeah, the only problem, as far as I see it, is that approve takes > --branch, so for example, I could very easily say something like: > > monotone approve --branch=net.venge.monotone.approved.linux \ > 6e87084a87413eed2c31100054ff8d5045f0be4d > > If that gets repeated a few, do you know what kind of graph that > branch (which I invented on the spot) would have?
Hmm? It would have the shape of whatever part of the revision history graph got put into it. > Maybe I worry too > much, but consider if someone mistakenly connects the revision to > another unrelated branch by using approve unwisely? Couldn't they do the same by using "commit -b foo" unwisely? > I think approve should at least warn if the given branch doesn't match > one of the branch certs already attached to the revision. Is it more often used to reiterate someone else's claim that a rev should be in a given branch, or to "bless" it into a special branch (release branch, maybe) that people are, by policy, not generally supposed to commit to? (Is it used often at all?) Tim _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel